Request of David Gustwiller, 1384 Brainard Road for a variance from Chapter 1323.03 of the Building and Housing Code, to allow a driveway widening addition, to encroach a full eighteen (18") inches into the required eighteen (18") inch side yard setback.

NOTE: Chapter 1323.03 Width in Residential Districts, states in part "any widening or addition shall not come closer than eighteen (18") inches to a side yard property line in the case of an attached garage."

Case No. 2010-04:

Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Boals, 1392 Croyden Road are seeking a variance from the front yard setback requirements, as defined in 1160.05 (a). They are seeking to construct a deck that will encroach eleven (11') feet into the fifty (50') foot front setback as defined for Croyden Road. The deck has been partially constructed. Construction has ceased at the request of the Lyndhurst Building Department.

July 12, 2010: Board of Zoning AppealsMINUTES:

The Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Lyndhurst met in Regular Session on Monday, July 12, 2010, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber of the Lyndhurst Municipal Center, 5301 Mayfield Road.

It was moved by Mr. Bader, seconded by Mr. Warren, that the reading of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held April 12, 2010, copies of which were mailed to all members, be dispensed with and said minutes stand approved as circulated.

The question was put to a voice vote and passed unanimously.

Motion carried.

Case No. 2010-03

Request of David Gustwiller, 1384 Brainard Road for a variance from Chapter 1323.03 of the Building and Housing Code, to allow a driveway widening addition, to encroach a full eighteen (18") inches into the required eighteen (18") inch side yard setback. NOTE: Chapter 1323.03 Width in Residential Districts, states in part "any widening or addition shall not come closer than eighteen (18") inches to a side yard property line on the case of an attached garage.

Grounds for appeal and Chapter 1323.03 were read by Ms. Colich, Secretary.

Letters of invitation were sent to all pertinent property owners, a copy of which is made part of the permanent file.

Mr. Puskas stated no letters were received in answer to the notification sent by the Building Department.

The following witness signed the register and was sworn in by Mr. Murphy:

David Gustwiller, appellant, 1384 Brainard Road.

Mr. Gustwiller, appellant and owner of 1384 Brainard Road, testified that he has received a letter from Mr. Robert Goff, 1378 Brainard Road, stating that he has no objection to the granting of the variance. He then presented copies of photos and a list of properties in the area which have driveway widening additions.

In answer to Mr. Koss's question, Mr. Gustwiller testified that he and his neighbor both believe that the fence is the neighbor's; the driveway width will extend to the fence.

In answer to Ms. Colich's question, Mr. Gustwiller testified that he and his neighbor assume the property line is at the fence; he had measured from fence to fence and it is fifty (50') feet.

Mr. Gustwiller testified that the proposed addition will only be about half the length of the existing driveway, towards the garage area.

In answer to Mr. Koss's comment, Mr. Gustwiller testified that the widest point of the driveway with the proposed addition will be seventeen (17') feet.

Mr. Bader stated that the neighbor to the south of the appellant has a wider lot, and the neighbor's house sits further to the south with more green space between his house and the appellant's driveway.

In answer to Mr. Bader's suggestions on reconfiguring the proposed driveway addition, Mr. Gustwiller testified that he would prefer to keep as much existing landscaping as possible.

F I N D I N G S

The Board finds that:

There were no objections from abutting property owners, in fact, the neighbors at 1378 Brainard Road and 1390 Brainard Road wrote letters stating they have no objections to the requested variance.

Parking is restricted on Brainard Road.

The requested variance does not change the character of the neighborhood; at least one third to half of the neighbors in the area have driveway extensions as shown in photographs submitted this evening.

The proposed extension will not be the entire length of the existing driveway.

The requested variance, eighteen (18") inches, is a minimal variance.

The appellant could accomplish the same purpose without a variance. A variance would not be needed if the proposed driveway addition was two (2') feet to the north and seven (7') feet to the south, or four (4') feet on one side and four (4') feet on the other side of the existing driveway.

The neighbor to the south has a wider lot with plenty of landscaping between the proposed driveway addition and the house.

It was moved by Mr. Novak, seconded by Mr. Warren that recommendation be made to Council to confirm the decision of the Board to grant requested variance based on the above findings.

The question was put to a voice vote and passed unanimously.

Motion carried.

Case No. 2010-04

Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Boals, 1392 Croyden Road, are seeking a variance from the front yard setback requirements, as defined in Chapter 1160.05 (a). They are seeking to construct a deck that will encroach eleven (11') feet into the fifty (50') foot front setback as defined for Croyden Road. The deck has been partially constructed. Construction has ceased at the request of the Lyndhurst Building Department.

Grounds for appeal and Chapter 1160.05 (a) were read by Ms. Colich.

Letters of invitation were mailed to all pertinent property owners, a copy of which is made part of the permanent file.

Mr. Puskas stated no letters were received in answer to the notification sent by the Building Department.

The following witnesses signed the register and were sworn in by Mr. Murphy:

Mr. McClain, Builder, testified that the original deck was six (6') feet by twenty (20') feet. He further stated that the homeowners wanted to add four (4') feet to the width for a ten (10') feet by twenty (20') foot deck.

Mr. Boals testified that the lots in the area are odd shaped, and his lot is forty-nine (49') feet, six (6") inches.

Mr. McClain testified that the new deck will match the existing deck color.

In answer to Mr. Murphy's question in regards to obtaining a permit, Mr. McCain testified it was negligence; he didn't think one was needed to add on to an existing structure.

In regards to the lattice at the end of the house, attached to the deck, Mr. Boals stated that it will be replaced with white, vinyl lattice.

Mr. Bader stated that the deck is constructed very well and looks as though it is a porch, which is preferred on the front of a house.

Mr. Warren stated he would prefer that the lattice on the side of the deck be taken down and not be replaced, to create a more open feeling. He further stated that he would like the deck to be painted or stained to be more harmonious with the existing house and to be more in keeping with a porch like structure.

Mr. Bader concurred, stated he would like to see all the upright beams be stained white to match the existing trim on the house and to achieve a porch like feeling.

Based on the existing six (6') foot variance, the request for variance is only for four (4') feet, and not the entire ten (10') foot deck encroaching into the front setback.

Mr. Puskas stated a permit for the original deck was obtained approximately twenty (20) years ago.

In answer to Mr. Warren's comment regarding removal of the lattice, Mrs. Boals testified she would like to replace the wooden lattice with white vinyl lattice the entire ten (10') foot width of the deck for privacy; vines will be planted to grow onto the lattice.

Mr. Bader stated that there is already natural screening between the two properties.

F I N D I N G S

The Board finds that:

There were no objections from abutting property owners; in fact, there were eight (8) letters in support of the requested variance.

Due to the curvature of the street, the setback line is not straight, and the structure is not as noticeable.

The north side neighbor has more than adequate screening from the structure, and the south side neighbor has the curvature of the land; the structure would not be obtrusive to either abutting neighbor.

The original structure was already built encroaching six (6') feet into the fifty (50') foot front setback.

The lots on this side of the street are shorter than the other side of Croyden, and the lots behind them.

It was moved by Mr. Warren seconded by Mr. Bader that recommendation be made to Council to confirm the decision of the Board to grant requested variance based on the above findings and following conditions:

That the lattice not extend beyond the overhang.

Any wood facing the street or side should be painted or stained white to match the existing trim on the house.

The question was put to a voice vote and passed unanimously.

Motion carried.

It was moved by Mr. Novak, seconded by Mr. Koss that the meeting be adjourned.

Request of Timothy A. Dusek, 1563 Richmond Road, for the preferred variance from Section 1160.04 (a) (6) of the Planning and Zoning Code, to permit the construction of a one hundred forty four (144') square foot, twelve (12') foot high storage building in the rear yard: Storage buildings are limited to one hundred twenty (120') square feet in area and eleven (11') feet in height. Variances of twenty (24') square feet and one foot respectively are requested.

Alternate Variance Request:

A variance from Chapter 1164.04 (a) (1) of the Planning and Zoning Code, to allow a one hundred sixty (160') square foot addition to the existing garage. Mr. Dusek is permitted to have a garage not larger than six hundred fifty eight (658') square feet in area. With the addition, the garage would be seven hundred thirty six (736') square feet in area. Thus, a variance of seventy-eight (78') feet is requested.

April 12, 2010: Board of Zoning AppealsMINUTES:

The Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Lyndhurst met in Regular Session on Monday, April 12, 2010 in the Council Chamber of the Lyndhurst Municipal Center, 5301 Mayfield Road.

It was moved by Mr. Bader, seconded by Mr. Warren that the reading of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held February 8, 2010, copies of which were mailed to all members, be dispensed with and said minutes stand approved as circulated.

The question was put to a voice vote and passed unanimously.

Motion carried.

Case No. 2010-02

Request of Timothy Dusek, 1563 Richmond Road, for the preferred variance from Section 1160.04 (a)(6) of the Planning and Zoning Code, to permit the construction of a one hundred forty four (144') square foot, twelve (12') foot high storage building in the rear yard: Storage buildings are limited to one hundred twenty (120') square feet in area and eleven (11') feet in height. Variances of twenty four (24') square feet and one foot respectively are requested.

Alternate variance request:

A variance from Chapter 1160.04 (a)(1) of the Planning and Zoning Code, to allow a one hundred sixty (160') square foot addition to the existing garage. Mr. Dusek is permitted to have a garage not larger than six hundred fifty eight (658') square feet in area. With the addition, the garage would be seven hundred thirty six (736') square feet in area. Thus, a variance of seventy-eight (78') feet is requested.

Mr. Dusek, 1563 Richmond Road, testified that his existing garage is not large enough to store his three (3) motorcycles, a truck, and a trailer. He would like to store all vehicles inside, but now, he parks his truck in the driveway due to space constraints. He then presented photographs of the front of his house showing that when passing in front of his house, on Richmond Road, nothing in the rear yard can be seen, such as the vehicles or the garage. He then testified that two variance requests were presented so that the Board of Zoning Appeals could choose the one they thought best suited the property; he would prefer the first request, which requests a variance for a storage building. He further testified that if the first variance request is granted, the proposed storage facility would be built between the house and the garage; the addition to the existing garage, if granted, would also be built between the house and garage. He further testified that if granted, the proposed storage facility roof would be built with the same roof pitch as the existing house. He also testified that only the Richmond Road neighbors would be able to see the requested storage facility or proposed addition to the garage, but there is an existing six (6') foot high fence on his property. He then stated that the siding on the proposed storage building or the proposed addition to the garage would match the existing siding on the house.

Mr. Bader stated that a storage building, within code, would be ten (10') by twelve (12') feet, and should be substantial for parking three motorcycles, if the door is placed in a way that would allow the twelve (12') feet to be the width, and the ten (10') feet to be the depth.

Mr. Koss asked if a variance would be needed if the proposed storage building was built as shown on the proposed plans, in close proximity to the house.

Mr. Warren asked if there was a maximum percentage of yard area in which accessory buildings, in this case, the existing garage, and then the proposed storage facility or the proposed addition to the garage, could occupy.

In answer to Mr. Koss's question, Mr. Murphy explained that if the first variance request was granted, the proposed storage facility would have to be built at least twenty (20') feet from the existing house.

Mr. Koss stated he would be reluctant to grant a variance for the proposed storage building, due to the size of the backyard, stating that the house may be hard to sell in the future since the backyard is small and due to the amount and/or size of accessory buildings.

In answer to Mr. Koss's question, Mr. Dusek stated that his truck does fit into the garage, height wise, but since he purchased a trailer, he parks the truck in the driveway.

In answer to Mr. Warren's question whether a previous variance was granted for the existing garage, the secretary stated that no variance request was recorded.

In answer to Mr. Dusek's question, Mr. Bader stated that a garage must be thirty (30) feet from a house. He further stated that the existing garage is two (2') feet closer to the house than what the code allows.

Nick Stropki, 1551 Richmond Road, which is the other corner house across from Mr. Dusek's house, on the same side of Richmond Road, testified that he is not opposed to the granting of either variance request. He then commended Mr. Dusak on the upkeep of his property.

Members of the Board suggested other ideas to eliminate the need for a variance.

Mr. Mandato stated that even if Mr. Dusak proposed a ten (10') foot by twelve (12') foot shed, which is within code, a variance of two (2') feet would still be needed due to the small size of his lot.

Ms. Colich stated that if that were the proposal in front of the Board, a ten (10') by (12') foot shed, even though he would need a two (2') foot variance, she feels the Board would be more apt to grant the request, due to the minimal request and due to the size of the lot.

F I N D I N G S

The Board finds that:

Special conditions or circumstances do not exist peculiar to the land or buildings in this case.

Case No. 2010-01:
Request of Sally and Howard Ross, 5383 Golfway Lane, for a variance from the provisions of Section 1160.05 (table) "rear yard setback" of the Planning and Zoning Code. This applicant requests a seventeen (17') foot rear yard variance to allow the erection of a one story bedroom for an elderly parent.

February 8, 2010: Board of Zoning AppealsMINUTES:

The Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Lyndhurst met in Regular Session on Monday, February 8, 2010, in the Council Chamber of the Lyndhurst Municipal Center, 5301 Mayfield Road.

It was moved by Mr. Novak, seconded by Ms. Colich to elect the following slate of officers for the year 2010:

Frank Koss, Chairman
David Bader, Vice Chairman
Kim Colich, Secretary

The question was put to a voice vote and passed unanimously.

Motion carried.

It was moved by Mr. Bader, seconded by Mr. Novak that the reading of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held October 12, 2009, copies of which were mailed to all members, be dispensed with and said minutes stand approved as circulated.

The question was put to a voice vote and passed unanimously.

Motion carried.

It was moved by Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Bader that the reading of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held November 9, 2009, copies of which were mailed to all members, be dispensed with and said minutes stand approved as circulated.

The question was put to a voice vote and passed unanimously.

Motion carried.

Case No. 2010-01

Request of Sally and Howard Ross, 5383 Golfway Lane, for a variance from the provisions of Section 1160.05 (table) "rear yard setback" of the Planning and Zoning Code. This applicant requests a seventeen (17') foot rear yard variance to allow the erection of a one story bedroom for an elderly parent.

Grounds for appeal and Chapter 1160.05 were read by Ms. Colich, Secretary.

Letters of invitation were mailed to all pertinent property owners, a copy of which is made part of the permanent file.

Mr. Puskas stated he received responses from Susan Sweig of 5384 Meadow Wood Boulevard, Charles and Marie Martis of 5391 Golfway Lane, and Allison Riley and Christopher Glantzis of 5375 Golfway Lane, all stating they had no objections to the variance being granted.

The following witnesses signed the register and were sworn in by Mr. Murphy:

Eli Mahler, 3947 Ash Lane, 44122
Howard Ross, 5383 Golfway Lane

Mr. Mahler, architect, testified that his client is requesting an addition to the existing house so that Mrs. Ross's elderly mother can move in with them. He further testified that Mrs. Ross's mother has been a resident of Lyndhurst for many years and that the adjacent neighbors have no objection to the granting of the variance. He then testified that the proposed addition would match the existing materials and colors of the house.

In answer to Mr. Koss's question regarding placing the addition on the existing concrete patio slab, Mr. Mahler testified that originally they thought to erect the addition at that location, no variance would be needed, but the proposed addition would block windows in that portion of the house.

Mr. Bader stated that the roof would have to be restructured if the proposed addition was built on the existing concrete slab.

In answer to Mr. Bader's question, Mr. Mahler testified that to only put a bedroom on the existing slab, and not a bathroom, as shown on the proposed plans, would be defeating the purpose because there is no bathroom on the first floor of the house.

Mr. Ross testified that this is the only portion of the house that would support an addition with a bedroom and bathroom on the first floor due to the roof lines and existing windows.

Mr. Mahler testified that it would be a hardship not having a bathroom on the first floor, where the elderly person would spend most of her time, even if she used an existing bedroom upstairs.

In answer to Mr. Bader's option to build the proposed addition in the front of the house, Mr. Ross testified that building the proposed addition in the front of the house would mean that the picture window would have to be removed, and the proposed addition would severely detract from the aesthetics of the house and neighborhood.

Findings:

The Board finds that:

The existing house is a split level, with no bathroom on the first floor.

The design of the existing house does not allow for an addition within the setback due to the roofline, without major renovation.

Adjacent neighbors, and the neighbor to the rear had no objections to the variance being granted.

Request of Joanna Michalos of 5116 Kneale Drive for a variance from Chapter 1160.04 (a)(2) A & B of the Planning and Zoning Code to permit parking and/or storing of a commercial vehicle outside at any time in plain view.

November 9, 2009: Board of Zoning AppealsMINUTES:

The Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Lyndhurst met in Regular Session on Monday, November 9, 2009 at 7:30 PM., in the Council Chamber of the Lyndhurst Municipal Center, 5301 Mayfield Road.

In regards to the minutes of the Regular Meeting held October 12, 2009, Mr. Koss stated that on page 3, paragraph 6, line 2 should read: ". . . it would be in the best interest of the City to eliminate the exterior doors of the addition to prohibit the addition from becoming a rental unit in the future."

Case No. 2009-05

Request of JoAnna Michalos of 5116 Kneale Drive for a variance from Chapter 1160.04 (a) (2) A & B of the Planning and Zoning Code to permit parking and/or storing of a commercial vehicle outside at any time in plain view.

Mr. Puskas stated letters of invitation were mailed to all pertinent property owners, a copy of which is made part of the permanent file. He further stated that Alice Burman of 5123 Kneale Drive was not able to attend, but submitted a letter which was distributed to the members of the Board.

The following witnesses signed the register and were sworn in by Mr. Murphy:

Joann Michalos, 5116 Kneale Drive, property owner, testified that Michael, her fiancÚ is the foreman for Burton Scot, which is a seasonal job, and brings the truck home throughout the work season, then brings it back to the truck yard around Thanksgiving time. She further testified that Burton Scot prefers that the truck is brought to the employee's home to save time and fuel. She further testified that the truck is essential for Michael's job, and that neither was aware of the ordinances that prohibit commercial vehicles in a residential area. She also testified that this vehicle does not fit into the garage.

Mr. Warren stated that in the application for variance, there is no statement that would answer the question: "special conditions exist peculiar to the land or buildings in question."

Ms. Michalos testified that she cannot think of anything unique about her property, but that there are other people in Lyndhurst that keep their commercial vehicles at their houses.

Ms. Colich stated many other options in regards to housing the commercial vehicle, i.e., renting space or modifying the garage.

Mr. Koss stated that this size of truck blocks the view of traffic of people exiting their driveways, and considers it a safety hazard, due to the shortness of the driveways in that area.

Michael Ciornek, 5116 Kneale, appellant, testified that he knows there was a neighbor that complained about the commercial vehicle. He further testified that the vehicle is gone from sun up to sun down, and the vehicle is used only for work.

In answer to Mr. Koss's question, Mr. Ciornek testified that he could look into other options for his commercial vehicle, such as parking it in a commercial zoned area.

To clarify the application for variance, Mr. Bader stated that the vehicle was cited not because it has a company name on it, but because it has commercial license plates.

Scott Kautzman, 5115 Kneale Drive, testified that the reason this issue is before the Board is due to a lack of courtesy to the neighbors from the owner of the vehicle in question. He further testified that the truck is constantly parked in the street, in front of 5115 Kneale Drive for over seven (7) months. He then testified that he is trying to sell his house, and prospective buyers ask about the truck. He further testified that the company, Burton Scott, should find a solution for the vehicle.

? Kneale Drive, testified that many years ago, his father also had a commercial vehicle which was cited, and had to purchase another car to drive to where he parked the vehicle, which was in South Euclid.

William Gilbert, 5124 Kneale Drive, testified that he lives next door, and has no problem with the commercial vehicle as long as it is kept in the driveway and not the street. He then asked where it would be legal for Mr. Ciornek to park the vehicle.

Mr. Bader answered that Mr. Ciornek could park his vehicle in a commercially zoned district with permission from the property owner.

Mr. Murphy stated that he could also park his commercial vehicle in a residential zoned area if it is inside a garage.

Mr. Ciornek testified that after he was asked not to park his commercial vehicle in front of Mr. Kautzman's house, he did not. He further testified that he is a considerate person, and just trying to make a living.

Mr. Kautzman testified that the elderly neighbors have trouble getting out of their driveways due to the limited sight distance of the road.

At this time, Mr. Warren read a letter submitted by Alice Burman of 5123 Kneale Drive, who is opposed to the request for parking a commercial vehicle in a residential district.

In regards to the letter sent by the Board of Zoning Appeals to the mayor and council, in reference to Council's action on Board of Zoning Appeals Case No. 2009-04, Councilman Ward stated he spoke with the Building Commissioner asking for information on in-law suites. The Building Commissioner told Councilman Ward that in-law suites can be easily monitored by the Building Department. He told the Board to expect the change in the code. He further stated in regards to the frequency of requests for parking commercial vehicles in a residential areas, that further study will be done, and for this particular case, asked that the Board table the request since the commercial vehicle in question will be leaving the residential area within a couple of weeks, until the construction season begins next spring, and until this can be studied and resolved in a workshop session. He then emphatically directed the appellant to not park the commercial vehicle on the street at any time, and stated that he will inform the police department as well.

Findings:

The Board finds that:

Three neighbors voiced their opposition to the request for variance being granted, two in person and one by letter.

No hardship is shown by the appellant in the application for variance to allow the variance.

The commercial vehicle in question cannot be parked in the existing garage due to the size.

This is a direct action of the owner of the vehicle.

The requested variance is not the minimum variance that will allow a reasonable use of the land or buildings.

Denying the requested variance will not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other property owners.

It was moved by Mr. Koss, seconded by Mr. Warren that recommendation be made to Council to confirm the decision of the Board in Case No. 2009-05, to deny requested variance to Joanna Michalos of 5116 Kneale Drive, based on the above findings.

Roll Call:

Yeas: Bader, Colich, Koss, WarrenNays: None.

Motion carried.
Case No. 2009-05 is denied.

It was moved by Ms. Colich, seconded by Mr. Warren that the meeting be adjourned.

It was moved by Mr. Novak, seconded by Ms. Colich, that the reading of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held Monday, August 10, 2009, copies of which were mailed to all members, be dispensed with and said minutes stand approved as circulated.

The question was put to a voice vote and passed with Mr. Koss abstaining.

Motion carried.

At this time, the Oath of Office was administered by Mr. Murphy to Mr. Novak, to renew his term as member of the Board of Zoning Appeals.

The Oath of Office was administered by Mr. Murphy to Ms. Colich to renew her term as member of the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Case No. 2009-04

Request of Jason Eyler, 5004 Corliss Road for a variance from Chapter 1385.05 (b) of the Building and Housing Code, to allow a "kitchenette," in a proposed accessibility suite, within a single family dwelling house. Chapter 1385.05 (b) states in part that "Every dwelling unit shall be provided with one, and only one, complete kitchen or kitchenette with approved cooking, refrigeration and sink facilities.

Grounds for appeal and Chapter 1385.05 (b) were read by Mr. Warren, secretary.

No letters of invitation were mailed to abutting property owners, due to the inside location of the requested variance.

The following witnesses signed the register and were sworn in by Mr. Murphy:

Mrs. Eyler, homeowner, 5004 Corliss Road, testified that she and her husband are now in the process of building an addition onto the existing house for her elderly and asthmatic mother-in-law to move into. She further testified that as of now, her mother-in-law is independent, and needs the kitchenette to maintain that independence. She testified that there are four steps that lead into the main dwelling area of the existing house from the addition, which are a hindrance for her mother to go up and down the steps to the main kitchen area. She then testified that she understands that this requested variance could be viewed as intent for a two family home or the addition could be used as rental space, and assured the Board that that is not the case; in fact, she testified that the kitchenette would be removed if ever the family were to vacate the house.

Mr. Mandato stated that all required permits for the addition have been obtained.

In answer to Ms. Colich's question, Mrs. Eyler testified their intent all along was to build the kitchenette until they found out that a variance was needed. She further testified that for her mother-in-law to use the main kitchen, she would have to walk up four steps and into the back of the house.

Mr. Koss stated he had driven by the house in question, and commended Mrs. Eyler on the addition.

Mrs. Eyler testified that she and her husband had modified the front entrance of the addition so that it slopes up to one step instead of having many steps, for her mother-in-law's ease.

Mr. Novak stated that he feels the intent of the zoning code in this case, is carried out, being that an immediate family member will be moving in, and not for income purposes.

Mr. Koss recommended that the Eylers bring the architectural drawings to the Council meeting.

In answer to Mr. Bader's question, Mrs. Eyler testified that there are two (2) exterior doors on the addition, the front entry, and an additional door which leads to the rear yard, both are wheelchair accessible.

In answer to Mr. Novak's question, Mrs. Eyler testified that there will be two (2) separate front entrances to the house.

In answer to Mr. Warren's question, Mr. Murphy stated that by law, the Board cannot require the kitchenette to be removed once the variance is granted; the variance goes with the land.

Discussion continued on this house becoming either a two family home or the addition being used as a rental unit in the future, especially with the two (2) exterior doors.

Mrs. Eyler asked the difference between a kitchenette and a wet bar; Mr. Warren read from the code, which states that a kitchenette has . . . approved cooking, refrigeration, and sink.

Mrs. Annette Eyler, mother-in-law, testified that her son and daughter-in-law are true to their word in saying that the kitchenette would be removed when the house is vacated by the family.

Mr. Koss stated that he believes her, but unfortunately that is not the issue. The Board concurred.

Mr. Mike Leonetti, 5010 Corliss, testified that the four (4) interior steps leading to the main dwelling could be reason enough due to the hardship it would cause the inhabitant, being the mother-in-law.

Mr. Koss stated that if Council were to overturn the decision of the Board, he felt it would be in the best interest of the City to eliminate the exterior doors of the addition to prohibit the addition from becoming a rental unit in the future.

Findings:

The Board finds that:

There were no objections from abutting property owners.

The purpose for installing a kitchenette was not to create an income producing property or a living area for non-family members.

The application meets a very narrow definition of family, and that being the mother of one of the homeowners.

There are four (4) interior steps that lead to the main dwelling unit, which for health reasons are difficult to ascend and descend to get to the main kitchen area.

The Board is sympathetic to the circumstances, being that a blood relative of the homeowner would be living in the addition.

No uniqueness to the property that would give the Board authority to grant an exception to the zoning code, as narrowly defined as written.

There are two (2) exterior front entrance doors.

A literal interpretation of the code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other property owners.

The conditions do not result from previous actions of the applicant.

The requested variance is not minimal to allow the reasonable use of the land.

It was moved by Mr. Koss, seconded by Mr. Warren that recommendation be made to Council to confirm the decision of the Board in Case No. 2009-04 to deny requested variance based on the above findings.

Roll Call:

Yeas: Bader, Colich, Koss, Novak, WarrenNays: None.

Motion carried.

It was moved by Mr. Koss, seconded by Ms. Colich that the meeting be adjourned.